Guild Wars 2

ronpierce.2760:

dancingmonkey.4902:

ronpierce.2760:

dancingmonkey.4902:

ronpierce.2760:

coglin.1867:

Where can I go play it right now to make an informed decision?

Everyone here appears entirely too intelligent to make complaint threads and uninformed…………………………………………………Wait, whats that? Its not even out yet? But this thread………………..

Um. You don’t need to play it to realize you want to be able to chose what you’re doing. Easy way to prove it, say you hit que and you could either end up in pvp or in a dungeon with 4 others and you had no say about it and was punished if you left, youd quickly realize why this is a bad idea. They are vastly different modes.

What path do you prefer using when doing a timed rush for the opponents lord?

What is the best comp on this map?

Why would you compare a mode in which your opponent is a player to that of the environment and NPCs, and expect that to be taken seriously?

Because you ignored my point just to be a smart kitten . They’re entirely different game modes where people will have timely preferences and don’t want to be forced to RNG their way into what they want to do.

I didn’t ignore your point. I simply pointed out how your point is very uninformed, due to a total lack of experience to make one.

By the way, who are the “people” you are claiming to speak for? Did they vote for you to represent them somewhere or are you being presumptuous in assuming you speak for more then yourself?

The “people” are the 91% who voted they’d rather them split, I guess you could say. And you say you are getting my point, but you’re not. It’d be like arena and BGs being on the same que in WoW. We’re informed ENOUGH to know that they cater to different play styles and one shouldn’t be forced if someone only wishes to do the other.

Your not forced. You get a vote at the map scree, and can leave at anytime.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Metrics can be great, but there’s always the danger of interpreting them wrong, which I think Anet does a lot.

The way I see it, numbers are low likely because of lack of new content, which leads to no more new content because numbers are low.

What metrics are you suggesting they misinterpretation? What are those metrics? How are they misinterpreting them?

Josh.5839:

like you knowalot of the class skills are easy to pull off and do lotsa dmg

like if it involved more set up n timing would that anger the average frat boy?

pls give good feedback

How do we know your not both casual and in a fraternity?

Where can I go play it right now to make an informed decision?

Everyone here appears entirely too intelligent to make complaint threads and uninformed…………………………………………………Wait, whats that? Its not even out yet? But this thread………………..

Jim Hunter.6821:

coglin.1867:

A floating cap locks players out artificially. A floating cap lowers when players log off. A few people DC. Now the cap lowers, forcing them out of the game.

No assumptions made. Does your suggestion not limit player caps based on the population of the weakest link? The lowest population server in the match up? If artificial caps are put on the more populated servers, it will not be a matter of people not wanting to play the game, the artificial cap your idea creates, literally disallows them to get into the game forcing unnecessary queues on them.

If your idea is something different, please, by all means, clarify.

That was not my point. My point was the forced queues your suggestion imposes on larger population servers, in an artificial manner, when they are matched up to lower population servers.

You prefer a horribly unbalanced match-up? I’d rather sit in queue for an hour than have 600 PPT all week with no one to fight because the other servers don’t stand a chance.

Some players may choose to move to have shorter queues which would actually end up being healthy for the game. Buying guilds and stacking 1 server would no longer be a guaranteed win.

That doesn’t make much sense to me. Redesigning the game to force higher populated servers’ players to move to lower populated servers? All that argument does, is open the flood gates for the argument that those with complaints about population now, be forced to move. How greedy do you have to be to demand the higher populations be forced to move, instead of forcing the lower populations? In what world does the ultra minority win over the majority?

Jim Hunter.6821:

coglin.1867:

That doesn’t make any sense as I see it. As far as I know, players do not log in on off hours because they are sleeping, working, tending to kids, families, and school. If players were free to log in at off hours, then everyone would do so.

That’s absolutely untrue. Every server has fair weather players that log off when things are too challenging. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen players log in, ask if there is a zerg running and then log off when they don’t see a tag. Even players that constantly tag up and lead the push to regain keeps and towers can get burnt out on trying to gain ground against a group 3 times their size.

I’ll admit that there are times when I’ve pulled up the live map and saw that our PPT was in the teens and said screw it, I’ve got errands to run, let someone else cap everything back today. If I knew for a fact that the other servers could only field a roughly equal sized group instead of calling in the blob I would be a lot more likely to hop on and play.

Which post that you have made, in which you down play anyone concerned about PPT, mock them, or speak negatively of anyone concerned about PPT, would you like me to link here? You are very clear that PPT is irrelevant to you.

Xyonon.3987:

Let me dream Well lets take a look at the ready up

Your allowed to dream, but the way you intentionally worded the title and perpetuate and misrepresented rumors by doing it is certainly unhelpful and will mislead folks.

Jim Hunter.6821:

coglin.1867:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Xerox.6851:

What you are suggesting is a selfish call for what YOU think WvW should be without excepting that not everyone plays the same style as you. It is for that reason that Anet has such a hard problem. There are many sub-groups of WvW players with many different styles of play. If Anet only focuses on one (Eotm) the general community isn’t happy about it.

What I’m suggesting is a solution to the problem being discussed.

No, it cuts ones nose off, to spite their face.

I think you miss the point. I believe the idea is to find a solution that doesn’t destroy the game mode more then the problem. Your suggestions may be a means to an end result, but it is a bad one. I agree with the other poster, that it is a selfish idea. It solves a smaller problem, while created a tremendous one.

Jim Hunter.6821:

A floating cap wouldn’t prevent large groups like T1 and T2 from having large scale fights. It would however make T3 much more enjoyable. I’ve been on both sides of lopsided matches, it’s terrible for everyone involved.

A floating cap locks players out artificially. A floating cap lowers when players log off. A few people DC. Now the cap lowers, forcing them out of the game.

You are making the assumption that people would rather not play the game. For your scenario to happen players from all 3 servers would have to DC at the same time and then choose to not log back in.

No assumptions made. Does your suggestion not limit player caps based on the population of the weakest link? The lowest population server in the match up? If artificial caps are put on the more populated servers, it will not be a matter of people not wanting to play the game, the artificial cap your idea creates, literally disallows them to get into the game forcing unnecessary queues on them.

If your idea is something different, please, by all means, clarify.

Jim Hunter.6821:

I’m willing to bet there are far more people that would log back in because they enjoy the game than there are people that try to manipulate the system by not playing.

That was not my point. My point was the forced queues your suggestion imposes on larger population servers, in an artificial manner, when they are matched up to lower population servers.

Jim Hunter.6821:

It’s even more likely that more players would start logging on during off hours since they wouldn’t be hopelessly outnumbered.

That doesn’t make any sense as I see it. As far as I know, players do not log in on off hours because they are sleeping, working, tending to kids, families, and school. If players were free to log in at off hours, then everyone would do so.

Chairface.9036:

The idea they are tossing around is making WvW reward tracks the end game of GW2.

As of now the only attraction to WvW is when the K-Train is running full steam ahead. Most people haven’t learned the fun of fights and how to create fights with PPT.

Karma is the only attraction? That doesn’t make sense. WvW was known as the weakest way to earn karma for most of the games duration, and developed a healthy community. That in itself disproves that odd claim.

Who are these “most people” ? In my experience, it appears more people know how to have a great fight over a garri rush, or a long battle over bay, hills, or another keep then there are of players who do not.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Xerox.6851:

What you are suggesting is a selfish call for what YOU think WvW should be without excepting that not everyone plays the same style as you. It is for that reason that Anet has such a hard problem. There are many sub-groups of WvW players with many different styles of play. If Anet only focuses on one (Eotm) the general community isn’t happy about it.

What I’m suggesting is a solution to the problem being discussed.

No, it cuts ones nose off, to spite their face.

I think you miss the point. I believe the idea is to find a solution that doesn’t destroy the game mode more then the problem. Your suggestions may be a means to an end result, but it is a bad one. I agree with the other poster, that it is a selfish idea. It solves a smaller problem, while created a tremendous one.

Jim Hunter.6821:

A floating cap wouldn’t prevent large groups like T1 and T2 from having large scale fights. It would however make T3 much more enjoyable. I’ve been on both sides of lopsided matches, it’s terrible for everyone involved.

A floating cap locks players out artificially. A floating cap lowers when players log off. A few people DC. Now the cap lowers, forcing them out of the game.

Zetsumei.4975:

coglin.1867:

sminkiottone.6972:

coglin.1867:

Tom Gore.4035:

Make the best personal rewards in WvW come from killing enemy players, not capturing objectives.

perhaps you are new to WvW, but killing enemy player is not, nor has every been, the actual object of the game mode.

WvW is PvP, if you like WvE you can go EoTM.

Capturing objective should be the least rewarded thing in WvW, defending and killing other players should be far more rewarding.

Remind us again, How do you win a match up?

Coverage and population.. it’s a joke that there are still ppt heroes around

Battling for keeps, to stay ahead in the points standing creates organic battles for territory. But I guess I can be your hero if you want. Thanks for asking.

@Pavel. You do not have the slightest idea why most folks did or didn’t do anything. Speak for yourself if you don’t mind. There is no “us” in your decisions. I for one e check the dev tracker every time I visit the forums. As well as the news and announcement section. They posted it in news and announcements so if you missed the announcement of that news, it is in you and not us.

sminkiottone.6972:

coglin.1867:

Tom Gore.4035:

Make the best personal rewards in WvW come from killing enemy players, not capturing objectives.

perhaps you are new to WvW, but killing enemy player is not, nor has every been, the actual object of the game mode.

WvW is PvP, if you like WvE you can go EoTM.

Capturing objective should be the least rewarded thing in WvW, defending and killing other players should be far more rewarding.

Remind us again, How do you win a match up?

Tom Gore.4035:

Make the best personal rewards in WvW come from killing enemy players, not capturing objectives.

perhaps you are new to WvW, but killing enemy player is not, nor has every been, the actual object of the game mode.

Jim Hunter.6821:

@Op: You missed one of the better suggestions, using a floating player cap instead of a hard cap. Put the hard cap at something like 20-30 players per side per map and only raise it when the other servers reach the cap.

You mean one of the worst suggestions possible right? This idea does nothing more then *artificially forces the higher tear servers to experience the same problem of lower tier. I was under the impression the goal here was to increase the WvW player base. Not force them out with artificial queues.

Based on the influxes I have seen in other MMO’s, I absolutely believe that, yes.

How will adding a new map require more players? The number of active maps will not change. As they stated, we will simply have the same 3 borderlands, only they will be the new map, and rotate back and forth between maps, for every other match up. At least that is what they stated, was the thinking now.

xDudisx.5914:

Server merging in the other hand seems to be a win win situation. If we transform the botton 6 or 9 servers into only 3 we would be able to transform several low populated servers into 3 active ones.

How do you feel that will effect the likely influx of players from an upcoming expansion? Everyone has seen how an expansion brings in a massive influx of both old and new players. I would think that waiting until after HoT to make a change might be wise. If folks try to go back into WvW or new folks want to experience it, and have 200 players queues, it could turn off a very large amount of potential WvW players.

Well that is nice to know. Thanks for the heads up on that. I don’t know about anyone else, but I would love if you could post more about how the process works.

Well, it would be nice if perhaps, periodically he made a weekly or monthly post to inform the community of what he relayed to whomever he reports to, or tossed us a bone about feedback he received in reference to what he relayed to them. At least I know I would like that.

Terrahero.9358:

woah there. “WvW community asking”.

GVG is a fraction, a minor sub species of WvW. Stronghold is not designed to satisfy this small group of players, at all.

Yeah. The blog post, to me, reads that it is simply another sPvP mode. I have no idea how anyone got it in their heads that it had anything to do with WvW.

Josh.5839:

i cant enjoy a casual game without a turret engi

Why do you feel the game should be redesigned or on your personal enjoyment? I do not enjoy playing as a turret engie. Tried it to see how it works. I found them to be ridiculously easy to dispatch. I see no reason to get rid of them.

Pinkamena Diane Pie.8054:

Guardian of Angels.9867:

Pinkamena Diane Pie.8054:

Getting someone who really represents the WvW community.

I vote for lordkrall :P

I would do it myself, but we know why anet wouldnt choose me

Maybe if you kept yourself from being banned, you might be a suitable candidate

And maybe if anet told up the truth rather than lie to us for 2 and a half years, players wouldnt be so hostile. This is all anet’s mess, not ours.

Regardless of what you think, no matter what they do, add, or change, someone will always want something else and hate something about it.

Pinkamena Diane Pie.8054:

Tiffany.8576:

Marmatt.8590:

I understand all of your concerns on whether or not im even qualified to be called a “specialist”. So here are some of my stats that may help with those concerns.
Total hours: 2,500 WvW rank: 300 Total AP: 8,500 Total Kills: 5,700

The worrying thing is that you consider those stats to be sufficient to be defined as a ‘specialist.’ Your rank is disproportionately low compared with the number of hours you’re claiming you’ve put into the game. That means most of your in-game focus has likely been elsewhere and not in WvW.

I think the main reason is due to this:

Johje Holan.4607:

In fact here is one of the requirements:

• must have a Guild Wars 2 forum account in good standing with a history that includes minimal, if any, warnings or infractions

That alone probably disqualifies most of the more active members of the WvW Forums.

So any active WvW players who post regularly here would not meet that requirement, as we’ve been infracted for our concerns.

No. Posters are infracted for posting in a manner that violates the forums code of conduct. Not for expressing their opinion in this particular subforum. It may aide you to understand the difference.

xDudisx.5914:

Do you even read the forums? The 3 things people keep posting all the time are: population inbalance, gvg and remove flyhacks. As the forum are the official communication with the devs what is most posted in the forums is a good sign of what the player base wants. This is common sense. What do you suggest make a referendum ?

Yes, I read the forums, thanks for asking. What I see is a very few, select posters, making threads or cross posting on various threads, over and over again. Out of the millions of people that bought this game, I bet you can’t link 200 distinct posters who specifically ask for GvG.

And that is just one out of twenty something sub forums. I am rather certain GvG isn’t even remotely one of the top request made by posters.

lil devils x.6071:

coglin.1867:

Bristingr.5034:

And what exactly has the WvW community been asking? I would like to know because it sounds like you (the OP) want a Guild vs. Guild type of thing, and last I checked, a server/world is made up of MANY guilds, some of which are spread across several worlds. You can’t do a proper Guild vs. Guild in World vs. World, it’s just not feasible.

I agree with the questiin here. The OP and others, are very problematic to the game and it’s community. They dishonestly claim to speak for others who they have no permission to speak for. I am part of the WvW community, and I could care less for GvG. I can appreciate why a small part of the community would enjoy a GvG designed aspect, but when you dishonestly misrepresent others to promote your desire for it, you condemn your own argument in my opinion.

I think you fail to understand the numbers involved here, They have even been making online petitions over a year ago that most were not even aware of to sign up for asking for this:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/official-gvg-setup-in-gw2/

For players to go as far to even try to petition, even a year ago, when now the numbers that do gvg are even higher than then shows there are players who greatly desire this. Although myself and others I have spoke with who would support that petition were not even aware of it existing to sign it, as many have this sentiment, just have not " organized a united front to make a formal request to Anet".

You mistake people openly discussing their desires in games among friends, as " I speak for everyone" when that is not the case, even if those friends happen to represent their very large guilds. It is how you interpret what people are saying that is the issue here, not what they are actually stating. You see, I personally would probably " sit out" of GvG Events, as I have not as much interest in that anymore myself, but the people I enjoy playing Guild Wars with have expressed their dissatisfaction with not having GVG available for them. You see, I do not even want to play GvG, I want this implemented for others who do. I think you misjudge and misunderstand what people are telling you here. I have heard this from so many, even though I personally would not even use that game mode myself.

Relaying what is being discussed among friends in the hopes that these things change so they do not discontinue playing the game is not the same as " lets try to make what I want in the game seem more important." I personally would not even use it myself, I am bringing attention to GvG because I have heard many people that are very frustrated over it currently, and wish to have it resolved for them. Attacking people bringing attention to this concern does not help resolve the issue that they may leave game over this further reducing the games population. Attacking people for having concerns in the first place is toxic to the community to begin with. That is far more problematic than people trying to prevent further game population decline.

No, it appears you misunderstand. The OP is falsely claiming to speak for the WvW community and that is dishonest and unacceptable to me.

That aside, you linked a petition site that I anyone can use 74 different emails to skew the petition in their favor. That suggest to me that you are not concerned about a level of integrity for the issue.

Bristingr.5034:

And what exactly has the WvW community been asking? I would like to know because it sounds like you (the OP) want a Guild vs. Guild type of thing, and last I checked, a server/world is made up of MANY guilds, some of which are spread across several worlds. You can’t do a proper Guild vs. Guild in World vs. World, it’s just not feasible.

I agree with the questiin here. The OP and others, are very problematic to the game and it’s community. They dishonestly claim to speak for others who they have no permission to speak for. I am part of the WvW community, and I could care less for GvG. I can appreciate why a small part of the community would enjoy a GvG designed aspect, but when you dishonestly misrepresent others to promote your desire for it, you condemn your own argument in my opinion.

All this idea does is make population exponentially more powerful. The suggestion will increase the problem and complaining about 10 fold.

Gudradain.3892:

dancingmonkey.4902:

Gudradain.3892:

coglin.1867:

Hit their golems with your golems.

It works to kill other omegas for sure. An omega are a good way to kill another omega.

Only problem is that the gate will go down before you are able to kill it… At which point omega become irrelevant as the zerg run through the keep.

Got evidence of that? My experience suggest otherwise. I feel as if you react to anyone who disagrees with you by making impulsive replies, whether you actual know something is true or not. Omegas take damage fast. They take damage faster then the door, and they take great damage from players. I have yet to see you offer any compelling argument that supports making any changes.

Let’s look at number together since you don’t believe in experience.

There are some people that have taken the time to measure the wall/gate damage for us. Like this one for example :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwAJB_M2HgU

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1S0RkQUsaXhBmv4y1dN7YtFWmuUq8VsUBUk1uxTj4AZw/edit?pli=1#gid=0

Now let’s look at a concrete example :

You have 10 Omegas attacking a keep with Reinforce gate

Reinforce Gate HP : 610000
DPS Omega : 1938
DPS of 10 Omega : 19380

So

Time it takes to destroy the gate = Reinforce Gate HP / DPS of 10 Omega
Time it takes to destroy the gate = 610000 / 19380
Time it takes to destroy the gate = 31.5 seconds

Now, there is 2 gates

Total time destroying gate = 31.5 seconds * 2 = 63 seconds

And the golem need to move, let’s say they waste 1 minute moving between gate.

Total Time = 2 minutes to destroy both gates once they started on the first one.

You also have to consider that mesmer feed back, player pvdooring, player buiding ram, golem mastery and it can go even faster.

---

Now let’s look how much health those 10 omegas have.

Omega HP : 270,635
HP of 10 Omeaga : 2,706,350

Do you think that you have the time to kill those 10 omegas before they take down your gates in 2 minutes considering that they are protected by a zerg that greatly outnumber you?

Experience have teach me hundred of times that the gates go down before the omegas are killed. Then you might be able to wipe the enemy zerg in lord room but at this point the omegas have already did their job which is to get you in.

There is no counter to a well organized raid of omegas except beating all the enemy zerg which you can’t do when they are as good as you and greatly outnumber you.

It’s game over as it’s impossible to stop the omegas in time. This is the problem.

Fact remains that 10 defending omegas will destroy 10 attacking omegas, long before the 10 attacking omegas destroy the first gate.

morrolan.9608:

Well the WvW devs are all now part of the overall PvP team and theyre still focussed on trying to make sPvP an esport so WvW will never be a big focus.

I won’t buy that story until I learn more about what comes with the Hot expansion.

Hit their golems with your golems.

You know you can go play those games too right? You don’t ha e to lobby to change this game into one of those. Variety is the spice of life. Play both.

DarkSyze.8627:

briggah.7910:

Take all the WvW guilds and then compare those with guilds that actually do GvG. There are a lot more WvW guilds than GvG guilds I would bet.. How long does fighting the same guilds over and over again go on before it becomes stale and boring.. How many actually GvG fights will you get in a day since most Guilds have different time zones and play at different times. You will still only be able to enter this GvG mode that you guys want when the other guild agrees on a time and can actually get people to go there.. I read forums. I watch GvG get canceled because the driver has a belly ache and cant make it.

The biggest problem going by what players talk about on these forums is population problems.. Making another game mode or even a spot for you all to run into each other will help kill off WvW even more.. So after you guys help kill WvW even more by pulling more people out of WvW. Your GvG mode be the next game mode to die off when you fight every guild that considers themselves a GvG guild over and over and over and over again.

So if your GvG map or mode that you want will help FIX population problems then I’m all for it.. If this GvG map or mode will take more players away from WvW then I’m not for it..

Guild vs Guild is your guild play against other guild; not server vs server; wvw, not pvp vs pvp.

many player do not play wvw; are you going to blame pvp? many player do not play pve; are you going to blame wvw? many player play pvp; are you going to blame pve and wvw? I research Guild Wars 2 have gvg; did gvg take away more player from pve and pvp?

Every player log in game have Choice to chose what game mode want play; arena net do not Force you chose play game mode; there is no 1 game mode in Guild Wars 2.

Example; more people take car to work; are you going blame train, bus for take away people? If there was only take car for work and no choice to chose train, bus than it is car for blame. It is not hard to understand; very easy.

If player want play pvp, pve, wvw and gvg game mode, it is their choice; not blame other game mode or other player or arena net for not taking away players

When company give player choice is good; in return…company grow and player base grow. When company take away choice from player, player base leave and company life cut short

Right, but I rarely see many asking for GvG. What I see is the same, very very few players asking for it over and over. I am not against GvG, but I would gather that they do not see the interest level high enough to make a return on the time/money investment it would require, and I think they are correct.

edgarallanpwn.8739:

segman.3560:

When you buy a skin you can use it first time for free on a desired item.
Every next use costs you a charge.

I don’t why it should be different because these are different services.

Why only the 1st time?

Do you buy a toy from the store, only use it once, then go back to pay to use it again?

That logic makes no sense.

You don’t need anything. It is all purely cosmetic. Your looking at it all wrong in opinion. Personally, I feel transmutation stones (at least get the name right) come so easily, that I ha e never had to buy them. The system doesn’t make sense to you, simply because you refuse to accept it. You have to use a consumable so e to transmute skins. What is so confusing about that?

Lord Kuru.3685:

You prove it. Because there’s no way population is surging. Unless, of course, they’re including EotM karma trainers in the numbers — which they’ve done in the past. They’ve given themselves a pretty bad reputation when it comes to trustworthiness.

It already has been proven. You simply ignore it in the name of saltiness. Such as claiming they are not trust worthy. I have seen no evidence of that. All I have seen is aggressive posters, such as yourself, make accusation, forcing them to rein in on posting and communication, by aattacking, over analyzation, and twisting everything they share, in the name of your saltiness, as you do here.

Johje Holan.4607:

Nope I’m not. I was going back and forth about it but when they self admittedly don’t even have the resources to support the game modes they have why would I think anything will be different in the future?

It’ll be the same ol’ same ol’ for the next two and a half years.

Got a link to those so called, self admissions?

I prefer to keep my NPC stuff in PvE.

Forcing higher population servers to have a lower queue to suite the weakest link server is by far the worst idea. It’s the fastest way to destroy WvW

rewarding for defending has always been a good suggestion. Attacking still needs to be more rewarding. Otherwise, why would anyone attack?

I have been in WvW all evening, and currently am now as well. I am not having lag issues. Perhaps you shouldn’t claim WvW as a whole is having a problem. That only makes you appear angry and uninterested in solving the issue. Unless you offer server, specific map, and time, how do you expect help?

Defending against outnumbered odds has nothing to do with dealing with golems, it has to do with manpower.

How do you defend against golems when you have 3 times as many fighters as your opponent?

Lets make this about the golems, not the manpower.

And yes, you used statements of fact. Perhaps your not understanding what definitive statements are.

Not to mention, you claimed to speak for “everyone”.

Deli.1302:

Life isn’t meant to be fair. If you are not enjoying the WvW on your server, either you pay and transfer or suffer the consequences of not doing so. Anet is unlikely to do anything about “dead” servers for a very long time, especially with an expansion on the way.

This sums it up nicely.

Videles.6759:

A lot of there customers are leaving because of this. So if they don’t care then they shouldn’t cry when customers leave. I’m about to quitte and ask for a refund to. Having 4:1 imbalance all the time is something they should fix. You already paid for the game. A lot people i know are not gonna purchase the expansion and a lot stopped purchasing gems. I think they have no idea the amount of kittened of customers they have about this and that its costing them money.

Prove it. Gayle recently posted about the population surging for some time now. Yet you claim to have better population metrics the the game developers?

I think they know precisely where their customers stand. How do you expect folks to listen to your perspective, when you make such large claims, that has so much evidence supporting the contrary?

Johje Holan.4607:

No its not about being able to deal with them. As mentioned by others, sure it is possible to defeat an Omega rush. But that’s not the point. Its that WvW would be better without them.

You appear to have difficulty discerning objective fact from subjective opinion. Yes, being able to defeat them, and how it is done, is precisely the point when folks are claiming they are over powered, when they are not. It may be your personal opinion that WvW would be better without them. Unfortunately, you do not know this, yet state it as if it were a fact. As I see it, that is a strong sign of irrational bias in someone who is unwilling to listen to any other perspectives or as in your case, to pretend their own opinion, is a fact.

Johje Holan.4607:

You seem to be assuming a lot and making things up. I never said “no siege”. Siege is an integral part of WvW. I like it too.

My bad. You said

Johje Holan.4607:

Get rid of all superior siege in fact.

Yet you offer no reasoning, logic, or explanations as to why. As well, you might be wary of tossing out the “claim” that others are making folks up, after “claiming” your personal opinion as if it were fact.

Johje Holan.4607:

Getting rid of Superior Siege would not limit the warlike nature of WvW. Nor would it eliminate the strategic siege and counter siege that you, and I, enjoy.

Please, by all means, offer some factual evidence to support that.

Johje Holan.4607:

What it would do is lessen the power creep that has occurred since launch. And power creep gives advantage to the already advantaged. Superior siege benefits the larger server as do most forms of power creep.

That seems counter intuitive. Care to prove how equivalent “power creep” isn’t equivalent?

Johje Holan.4607:

I always have to laugh when the server that vastly outnumbers the other two and is ahead by 200K brings 5 Omegas to attack the Gari or last Keep of the weak server. Like seriously as if you don’t outnumber them 5 to 1 anyway.

Because 1 to 5 can defend that easily. As well, it can be just plain fun. Although you do expose your agenda here. Clearly this isn’t about golems for you. It is a weaker, sideways argument to complain about population imbalance feelings.

Cake.4920:

coglin.1867:

As well, there is a plethora of counter to golems+zergs. Players have been fending off large forces with golems for almost 3 years now. Twitch and YouTube are packed with video evidence proving that.

Twitch and youtube are filled with video evidence of people winning 1v2, 1v3, 1v4, 2v5, etc. Does that prove that having less people is better than having more people?

No, not that I am aware of. Good thing I never suggested it did. As well, it has nothing to do with the conversation, other then confirming that some posters have an agenda to change the game mode as a whole for their personal issues with there limits in current match ups. For that, I thank you.

Pinkamena Diane Pie.8054:

It’s funny that, notice how the transfer fee is for the “benefit” of WvW players only now.

If you were once in a low populated server, your map zones in PvE could have been just you on it, the rest of it empty. So if you wanted to play with other players, moving to a more populated server would have been the answer.

But now thanks to the megaserver, all PvE players are thrown into the same instance, once that gets full they are put into a 2nd, if the first get’s some slots available, you now not only have the choice to join that more populated server, you also get a nice little buff.
No longer do PvE players have to spend their “hard-earned” gold on gems to transfer to a more populated server.
They also had guesting, though limited to 2 a week, they could still guest to the 2 most PvE populated servers!

So why do we WvW players?!
If PvE players dont have to, then I say we shouldnt either any more! We WvW players already spend a lot of our time fighting in WvW, whilst all PvE players benefit from the buffs their server acquires from the matches each and every week?

What has PvE ever given us?! Apart from all the PvE mobs we dont want and PvE event loot.

Your comparing apples to oranges. As well, you claiming to speak for a “we”. What “we” do you claim to be authorized to represent? Did I miss an official vote somewhere?

As to the OPs thoughts. I can see some logic in scaling the transfer cost.

Gudradain.3892:

Only really useful sieges to kill an entire zerg in front of your door/wall are arrow carts that can be destroyed by omegas in a few seconds. By your logic, anything with as much as a mediocre ranged AoE needs a nerf.

There is no counter to a Zerg + Omega Combo, unless you also have a zerg of nearly the same size that can simply wipe every enemies.

I can train a monkey to destroy the same ACs with eles or engineers or necros or rangers etc.

As well, there is a plethora of counter to golems+zergs. Players have been fending off large forces with golems for almost 3 years now. Twitch and YouTube are packed with video evidence proving that.

Gudradain.3892:

Next, you are telling that it is possible to counter omegas with sieges? Then go ahead, provide a screenshot of any siege placement you want and I will show you a screenshot how it can be countered by Omega by either moving to a place where it cannot hit the omega or can be destroyed by them. The most useful siege that I see is the cannon at garrison water gate, but even that can be line of sight by the omegas shooting at max range from the stairs.

Given all of the video of my guild and server mates, as well as other guilds and servers, fending off and destroying attacking omegas, the challenge falls to you to prove you can attack a sieged location and prove that you cannot be defended against.

Johje Holan.4607:

No don’t nerf them. Eliminate them.

They are just one more addtion to the game that Anet made that gives even more advantage to the strong.

Anet did not understand their game mode and the problems inherent to it. They made all these additions that did nothing but make already existing issues worse.

Get rid of all superior siege in fact. You will see how much more fun the game becomes.

In fact I propose this to be one of their “tests”. Like getting rid of white swords and adding PPK. Have a month where superior siege is unusable and see what happens.

So you propose they remove a level of siege simply because you, personally are unable to deal with those attacking with siege? If you want player to player fights alone, your welcome to go play PvP or initiate battles in obsidian sanctum. I prefer the warlike aspects that WvW offers now, thanks. I prefer using strategic siege and counter siege, similarly to how battle is designed in this instance. All your doing is making claims, and demanding they redesign an already existing, fun game mode, to serve your personal desires, regardless of how it effect those who enjoy it.

If you want a with limited to no siege, then go offer that suggestion in the appropriate sub forums, and stop suggesting the ruin this one for you alone please.

So your first argument point is to nerf golems, because of mesmer portals? Talk about a broken mentality that can hamstring a game and ruin it for everyone. Call that sentence extreme if you like, but the second you start promoting a nerf to completely unrelated items, such as siege, because of a professions skill, then your clearly reaching to find any conjured excuse for what you want, over discovering an actual solution.

I have yet to see a single argument that supports this idea that golems are OP or need a nerf. I have personally destroyed, or participated in the destruction of entirely too many golems to buy this lame argument.

Screenshots you ask? Do you have any screen shots to support your claim that intelligently placed ACs and other siege do not counter golems? Seems hypocritical of you to demand such evidence of their perspective, when you seem to lack any evidence to support yours.

As too balistas, you claim “Very hard to find a spot where it can hit the omegas AND cannot be instantly destroyed by all the players doing the golem rush.”……………………..Yet balistas have an enormous range compared to both the golems and the players. Your complaint is not the same here. Previously you were defending the notion that goelems are OP, now your complaining about the enemy players countering the counter to golems. So which is it? are the enemy players OP or the golems? stop waffling and pick one.

In my experience, if siege disablers are the only counter you have, then that is your an issue you have. One thing players need to learn, is that their experiences do not encompass that of the entire player base. When you demand a nerf based on your experiences of poor planning or strategy, you participate in degrading the game for the entire population. With that in mind, perhaps you should be more concerned about how this effects everyone as a whole, and not just your limited experience.

DarkSyze.8627:

Player who report problems; that is what i mean.

What problem might that be? Just because certain players claim something is a problem, doesn’t make it the case.

DarkSyze.8627:

You say every profession can instant kill; evidence with record video. Also, builds are not instant kill; traits is; without traits, no build. Example; A power ranger is from build from traits, a burst thief is from traits, a burst elementalist is from traits, a power necromancer is with traits. Look at thief traits; http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/List_of_thief_traits what do you see wrong with it? Thief also have a lot of stealth from traits; shadow arts. Look at elementalist traits; http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/List_of_elementalist_traits what do you see wrong with it? Look at engineer traits; http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/List_of_engineer_traitswhat do you see wrong with it?

Video evidence has already been posted. As well you seem confused. Build means traits.

Build is not problem; trait is; did you forget; you can not get full build before unlock and reach 80 level? I am still low level and do not have full build and i do good damage because i trait critic, increase damage. [/quote]

As well you seem confused. Build means traits.

So what, your built for pure damage then complain that you do alot of damage, and die quickly? That is an irrational complaint, it is precisely what is to be expected.

DarkSyze.8627:

When this old problem is fix including instant kill class. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/thief/The-thief-and-its-gameplay-Your-feedback-Merged/first

Expansion should be about fix player problem and game problem than have fun; not ignore player problem and game problem and have fun. Do not make sense

There is no such thing as “insta kill” professions. There are only insta kill builds, and every single profession can do it.

Define “player problems” in this case? Your complaint is a bit obscure, and unspecific. That makes it difficult to discern your complaint, much less address it.

Curo.2483:

And I don’t mean like the current 80 man limit (that might as well be a 500 man limit for most servers, since we rarely cap it out anyways). Perhaps lock off a map so that no server can have more than 10 players more than any other server. Maybe that way people will start to leave servers that are outrageously outnumbering other servers. Otherwise, why would they ever leave if they always win?

What server are you on? Why should I be disallowed to log into a map on my server, simply to appease your wants? Servers populations are balanced based on the player bases actions.

How many recruitment threads have you made to bring players to join you?

Curo.2483:

My favourite game mode has been ruined due to population imbalance for the last 2 months, and it’s going to end up making me quit the game. Fix your kitten, Anet! Stop neglecting WvW. kitten , siegerazer’s rams can’t even use their #2 skill. Zero attention is being paid to WvW. ZERO!

/rant

Then quit the game. That is your choice.

How do you suggest Anet fixes this issue, when you won’t even take steps to do so yourself? Personally, I feel making complaint threads with no constructive feed back, is extremely irrational, when we know we have a expansion incoming, that may make significant changes.

You appear to have difficulty comprehending the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion.

In my opinion balance is fine. Although I question anyone’s logic who plays WvW for balance. I have a good time, and enjoy myself when I play. I will buy the expansion, simply to further the scope of my fun.

HARDOFREADING.7298:

It’s still alive because 6 seconds of 0 damage is ridiculous for a class that has 2k range,a stealth,a destealth,crazy burst that tracks, & on top of all that A pet Fear. Completely unfair to try & defend a structure or take a structure from any group of rangers right now. Flame away

I rarely play my ranger. In my experience with the other professions though, I feel almost nothing about the ranger is near OP. I feel what is actually “ridiculous”. “unfair”, or “crazy” is how unrealistic your claims are.

Kontrolle.3514:

really, its killing what is left of gw2 roaming wvw.

I see plenty of roamers.

Kontrolle.3514:

80% of all smallscale is this condition thief steal crap

Is that so? I rarely see thieves, I see all warrior, engineer, D/D ele, and mesmer roaming on my server. The question then is, are you being intentionally dishonest to try to draw more attention to your argument, are you using unreasonable hyperbole for attention, or do you really think what happens to you defines the other 70+ servers full of players?

Kontrolle.3514:

because youre all bad and need a one button charcacter, thief is a gamebraking noob class in wvw since release but this is going to far, its unplayable right now.

If they are so bad, why do you fail to defeat them, to such an extent, that you made a thread about it?

If it is so game breaking, why do I have no trouble against them? If it is so unplayable, how is it that I am playing?

Kontrolle.3514:

i fight outnumbered 90% of my ingame time since release but this is just stupid right now, it doesnt matter how bad my enemies are, as long as they all manage to press F1 together, they win. Noobgame this is, made for baddies.

What does any of this blather have to do with anything? You sure appear to die a lot, or have a massive amount of difficulty, for as bad as you repeatedly claim the enemy is. Doesn’t that make you worse, by definition?

Kontrolle.3514:

i got all classes on level 80. I f this thief thing wont stop, were all going to steal F1 the hell out of this game until all off you quit gw2, enough is enough, srsly do something.

Who is we? Again, you disingenuously attempt to speak for others, as well as forcing your limited opinion on others.

What profession are you having so much trouble dealing with all of these bad players, that you are repeatedly claiming are so bad? What build are you running that you cannot beat all of these bad players, that you are repeatedly claiming are so bad?

I am curious, if conditions are so strong, why do you see no actual conditions builds on high end teams?

Archaon.9524:

coglin.1867:

Archaon.9524:

coglin.1867:

Mrbig.8019:

ye we all know they suck in organized team q, point is there’s no organized team q.

They’re lame and not fun, they’re also too effective for the % of brain needed to use them.

Okplsthx

Your main problem is that you appear to have difficulty comprehending the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion. Nothing is definitively bad simply because you say it is.

Why would you nerf turrets, when they are not over powered? We nerf skills and utilities because some random player “doesn’t feel they are fun” now?

So no nerf needed because some other even more random player saying it’s ok….looks legit

Ah, the old, I have no evidence or support for my argument, so I will accuse you of making statements you didn’t say trick. You must be a hit at parties……………Please quote the section in which I stated “it’s okay” or “no nerf needed”. I am fairly certain I made no actual opinion about turrets at all. I do appreciate you supporting my argument, by replying as you did though, thank you.

looks like you missed the whole part of turret engi being op just for the mere reason it’s way too rewarding for the effort it takes…0 skill specs should be 0 effective, and turret engi is far from being so bad

Your main problem is that you appear to have difficulty comprehending the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion. Nothing is definitively bad simply because you say it is. You should learn to discuss your opinion as exactly that, when you falsely state it as fact, you detract from your own argument.